All less than 10/10 votes cast before the current system was introduced should be turned to ones (or perhaps twos). In all likelihood, the intention of the voter was to vote a particular thing down, while now the old 6 to 9 votes up the page score instead of lowering it. A case in point is a Bob Smith text, currently on the front page.

Any chance in the voting system automatically means that old and new votes are not quite comparable anymore. There is no way to change the system and still avoid this: if there were, there wouldn't be a change in the first place!

First of all, due to the change in the voting system, the relative value of a particular vote is different from what it was before. Specifically, any vote between 6 and 9 is now more valuable than it used to be, and therefore a 10 is relatively less valuable, both for new votes and old ones. This is no accident, changing the relative value of votes was the main reason for the change. The rationale was that the majority of votes between 6 and 9 were still intended to express appreciation, and although there may well be some exceptions, I would not like to see such votes turned into 1's or 2's. It would take a thorough statistical analysis of all the (old) votes, followed by a (much more difficult) analysis of the voter's intentions to convince me otherwise, not just one particular case.

On a different note, some people have changed their voting behavior, and no longer follow the "vote 10 or not at all" strategy (with the very occasional 1 thrown in). When the new system was introduced, some people seemed to expect that many voters would change their behavior and use more of the scale, but most didn't do that. Regardless whether that's good or bad, one can argue that such a change in behavior implies that members who started voting differently should review all their older votes and change them accordingly. Or does your new 8, 9 and 10 still mean the same to you as your old ones? (If this makes you feel inclined to check all your old votes, good luck on finding them all.) I say, don't bother. The introduction of the new voting system created a discontinuity - so be it.

Given that the votes in the old and the new voting system are not quite comparable anymore, the fundamental question is whether to accept that, or to try to mitigate certain effects, be it by a one time change of (certain) older votes or otherwise. Personally, I believe the voting system is useful, but the details are not overly important. I see no need to fiddle around with the minor aspects of the system.

The real truth is "new votes need adjusting". But I see what you mean and have some what had that opinion. Problem is that I've voted some 8/10s on some bad but not terrible pages. Cutting the old votes in half would be a better way to go (except for 10s). The unfortunate truth is that it would not fly with the SP community for a couple of reasons.

1. People would say "I didn't vote that" which people would feel their votes were "rigged".

2. Some people actually voted 8/10 on great pages. Indeed rare, but I saw quite a bit of it because they were going off the scoring guide. But this was mostly newbies who did that.

If I had it my way, I'd be down for something like that. But the main site maintainer even does or does not do things he wants to do for the sake of what the community wants most. That is why it's safe to say SP is not a dictatorship, contrary to what an elf once wrote.

However if the majority of the community steps in, well then that changes the game. When I say majority, I mean more folks for it then opposed rather than everyone on SP.

Yatsek was referring to the fact that some folks who down voted the article did it on the bases of the old voting system. For example if someone didn't like the article but at the same time didn't hate it they would vote a 7/10 or a 8/10. Now those are good votes hence making it appear as if they support it. That article is just an example, there are many pages here on SP that people "down voted" but with the new system it is now positive.

As for my answer to Larry's question, putting aside my dislike of how the article was presented I'll say what's wrong with the page. Bob trashed talked people. He did not treat me very well. Had he been more respectful that would have been a different story.

Yatsek was referring to the fact that some folks who down voted the article did it on the bases of the old voting system. For example if someone didn't like the article but at the same time didn't hate it they would vote a 7/10 or a 8/10. Now those are good votes hence making it appear as if they support it. That article is just an example, there are many pages here on SP that people "down voted" but with the new system it is now positive.

As for my answer to Larry's question, putting aside my dislike of how the article was presented I'll say what's wrong with the page. Bob trashed talked people. He did not treat me very well. Had he been more respectful that would have been a different story.

Man oh man , I HATE to have to become involved in another controversy, but that's NOTHING like the "Bob" I used to get comments from ---- GEEZ LOUISE!

Gotta keep in mind that Sarah might have a valid POINT, Josh man ...

Sarah Simon wrote:Bob: Has someone hacked your account? I've always known you to be friendly, courteous and ELOQUENT in your discourse. The tone of your comments do not reflect well on you and seem far out of character for a member I like and respect.

Sarah

Of course, you can't believe everything you hear or read on the Internet. Just like Pink Floyd used to say :

Josh Lewis wrote:As for my answer to Larry's question, putting aside my dislike of how the article was presented I'll say what's wrong with the page. Bob trashed talked people. He did not treat me very well. Had he been more respectful that would have been a different story.

Well, what can be expected of someone who states that religion is “the most evil creation of mankind” I just wonder why such a sane guy hasn’t asked for asylum in North Korea yet.

Indeed she does. The comment threading is different from the forums. As a result you can't tell the difference from my replies to whom it is addressing. My reply was purely aimed at Bob. But of course trying to stay positive by saying "not trying to encourage insults, but it's embarrassing to be the insulter and wrong at the same time".

Are you suggesting that we change the counting of old votes so that they more easily downvote contributions? That seems to be what your last comment is supporting.

Do you think more people will be angered by leaving things as is or by us modifying how their old votes are tallied?

Finally, see the post below posted to the 'Scared on Ship Rock' trip report. A quick review of comments on that work seems to indicate that in many cases those who hated it voted a one, while if 'ambivalent' voted a 5... even though a 5 was not counted as ambivalence in the old system, it was intended that way by this voter and is now treated as such.

AmbivalentVoted 5/10

I respect your right to climb this rock, but not to flaunt treading on the sensitivities of others. Great climb nonetheless. 5/10, can't have it both ways.Posted Dec 6, 2010 12:59 am

1 Yes. Within the old system most of the voters did realize what a 1-9 really meant.

2 Hard to predict. But I guess more of those who speak up will express their annoyance at their votes being changed.

3 In practice that "ambivalence" was a polite way of telling the writer that in spite of some pros the score should go down as the page contains something unacceptable. Please also see the last seanpeckham's comment here.

Last but not least, would one find the controversial Bob Smith text among the best SP articles (first page if ordered by score) if the counting of the votes hadn't been changed?